499 U.S. 621 (1991)
In April 1988, Officers Brian McColgin and Jerry Pertoso were on patrol in a high-crime area of Oakland, California, dressed in street clothes with jackets marked "Police" and driving an unmarked car.1 As they turned onto 63rd Avenue, they observed four or five youths huddled around a small red car parked at the curb.2 Upon seeing the officers' car, the youths panicked and fled, with Hodari D. and one companion running west through an alley while others fled south and the red car sped away south.3
The officers pursued the youths.4 McColgin continued south in the car along 63rd Avenue, while Pertoso exited the vehicle, ran north along 63rd Avenue, then west on Foothill Boulevard, and turned south on 62nd Avenue.5 Hodari emerged from the alley onto 62nd Avenue running north.6 Looking behind him, Hodari did not notice Pertoso until the officer was nearly upon him, at which point he tossed away what appeared to be a small rock.7
Pertoso then tackled Hodari, handcuffed him, and radioed for assistance.8 A search revealed that Hodari was carrying $130 in cash and a pager, and the discarded rock was determined to be crack cocaine.9
In the subsequent juvenile proceeding against Hodari, he moved to suppress the evidence relating to the cocaine.10 The trial court denied the motion.11 The California Court of Appeal reversed that decision.12 The California Supreme Court denied the State's application for review, after which the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.13
Whether Hodari D. was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment at the time he dropped the drugs?14
A seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment requires either the application of physical force or submission to the assertion of authority by the subject. A show of authority alone, without compliance, does not constitute a seizure.15
No. The established facts demonstrate that Officer Pertoso applied no physical force to Hodari before the tackle that occurred after the rock was discarded. Hodari did not submit to the pursuing officer's show of authority but instead continued to flee until physical contact was made. Because the rule demands either physical force or submission for a seizure to occur, and neither element was present at the moment of abandonment, Hodari had not been seized when he dropped the drugs.16
Hodari D. had not been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment at the time he dropped the drugs, so the cocaine was not the fruit of an illegal seizure.17
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Kennedy joined the Court's opinion and added this brief concurrence to note that the Court does not address the question whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to pursue the respondent.18 That issue is not before us, and he expressed no view on it.19 His concurrence underscores the narrow scope of the majority holding by expressly reserving any opinion on whether the officers possessed reasonable suspicion to initiate the pursuit in the first place.20
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justice Marshall, contending that the pursuit itself was a seizure because the respondent was not free to leave. When two police officers in a high crime area tell youths to stop and then chase them, a reasonable person would not feel free to ignore the police and go about his business. The drugs were abandoned only as a direct result of the illegal seizure and therefore should have been suppressed, leading him to conclude that the judgment of the California Court of Appeal should be affirmed.21